Posted
by
Unknown Lamer
on Thursday August 02, 2012 @10:48AM
from the in-the-next-act-they-fall-in-love dept.

djl4570 writes "Samsung released to the press documents that had been excluded by Judge Lucy Koh. According to Samsung 'The judge's exclusion of evidence on independent creation meant that even though Apple was allowed to inaccurately argue to the jury that the F700 was an iPhone copy, Samsung was not allowed to tell the full story...The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design,' An article at another site described judge Lucy Koh as 'Livid.' The defendant released exculpatory evidence that had been suppressed by the judge. This after many stories in the tech press portray the case as Samsung versus Lucy Koh instead of Samsung versus Apple."
An anonymous reader sent in Groklaw's detailed take on the spat. Related to the trial, colinneagle sent in more info revealed about iPhone prototypes. One early design would have featured shaped glass, but materials weren't up to spec at the time.

Bingo. Samsung already has a no-lose case going. Either they win, or they appeal the ruling based on the obvious biases of the judge.

The cynic in me can't help but wonder if that's really the plan. She'll rule in favor of Apple, Samsung will appeal, this whole thing will drag on for years... meanwhile the lawyers and judges in the case are making $$$ and both Apple and Samsung get to keep their names in the headlines for a good long while.

The cynic in me can't help but wonder if that's really the plan. She'll rule in favor of Apple, Samsung will appeal, this whole thing will drag on for years... meanwhile the lawyers and judges in the case are making $$$

Problem with that, Samsung can't sell some of their products until this case is won. It is in Samsung's best interest to have this case over and done with as soon as possible.

Wont be the same judge in an appeal, so no, definitely not her game plan.

I think she just went with her ego and the Samsung lawyer is way out of her league (the judges that is). The Samsung lawyer knows what he is doing; not only is he making sure there will be an appeal should he lose, he has made Samsung look like the true hero and Apple like a villan. As the Groklaw article says, I want this guy as my lawyer!

Exactly what is the reason for choosing to suppress the evidence? I've been trying to figure that out since this started, but there is no explanation (that I could find, anyway) of why something as seemingly germane to the case as original design documents that predate what you are accused of copying would not be allowed.

Exactly what is the reason for choosing to suppress the evidence? I've been trying to figure that out since this started, but there is no explanation (that I could find, anyway) of why something as seemingly germane to the case as original design documents that predate what you are accused of copying would not be allowed.

They missed the deadline. If the evidence was that important, how come Samsung, a company that has already been found guilty of destroying evidence even against court order telling them to retain it, forgot about it for so long?

New evidence in a court case is admissible if required to use as a rebuttal to the opposition's claims. As Apple raised the issue of the F700 Samsung should have been allowed to present documents about it regardless if they were in the discovery period or not.

The pre-trial blockade of Samsung devices based on a few flimsy patents that might be worth a few cents at most (though Apple wants to claim $24 + 100% of Samsung's mobile division profit). The fact that that Samsung has been sanctioned for failing to issue orders to its staff to retain evidence before August 28 2010 (6 months before the case was filed) with the jury informed that they should assume this equates to willful destruction of evidence, while Apple did not issue such orders until April

I think that argument goes out the window when Samsung specifically says [allthingsd.com] the whole point is to influence the jury:

I don't see how. That was their statement about being pissed that the evidence didn't get admitted. As the Groklaw article said, Samsung is fighting Apple in two courts now, and one of those is public opinion. I think this side of things requires they make their arguments in public. In addition, the judge denied sealing all the documents, so what else to do be release them yourself.

"Contrary to the representations Apple's counsel made to this Court, Samsung did not issue a general press release and more importantly, did not violate any Court Order or any legal or ethical standards," Quinn wrote. "These false representations by Apple's counsel publicly and unfairly called my personal reputation into question and have resulted in media reports likewise falsely impugning me personally."

"Moreover, before jury selection, virtually all of the information and images in the excluded slides had already appeared in dozens of media reports, including by the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Huffington Post, and CNET," Quinn's declaration said.

So yeah, pointing which of long published images were not admitted into trial in a press release not meant to be read by jurors is "trying to influence jury", as Apple made sure everyone knows. I'm sorry, I think you've messed up your post somehow, whose bullshit propaganda was that again?

I think that argument goes out the window when Samsung specifically says [allthingsd.com] the whole point is to influence the jury:

The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence.

There is nothing in that statement that implies prejudicing the jury, only an attorneys opinion of the quality and force of the evidence presented. In all truth, it was a stab at judge Koh. It looks like he wants to get her as riled up as possible. It would be a master strategy, as any emotional response she gives, will essentially hand the whole thing to an appeals court faster than you can say conflict-of-interest. The judge has to always maintain the image of impartiality, and this Judge Koh has not only failed to maintain the image of impartiality, but is making as ass of herself by flaunting her authority (even where it doesn't exist), and by making bad calls. The evidence presented should not have been excluded, and what any party says to the press after jury selection is none of her damn business. Long story short, she should have known better, and now that the cat is out of the bag, she either recuses herself in shame, or the matter will go to appeal, and her decision is rendered meaningless anyway. She screwed up, and now shes being played for a fool.

There is nothing in that statement that implies prejudicing the jury, only an attorneys opinion of the quality and force of the evidence presented. In all truth, it was a stab at judge Koh. It looks like he wants to get her as riled up as possible. It would be a master strategy, as any emotional response she gives, will essentially hand the whole thing to an appeals court faster than you can say conflict-of-interest.

What's the conflict? I think you're confusing "bias" with "conflict".

The judge has to always maintain the image of impartiality, and this Judge Koh has not only failed to maintain the image of impartiality

I don't know about that. She's made many rulings against Apple, too, so questioning her impartiality would require some specific evidence.

but is making as ass of herself by flaunting her authority (even where it doesn't exist),

As you note, Quinn was trying to "rile up" the judge. That's the very definition of contempt of court, and it's certainly within her authority to demand explanations in such cases.

and by making bad calls. The evidence presented should not have been excluded,

Why not? It was raised only after the period for discovery was over. Why did Samsung withhold information on their own produc

I think just about any bookee will give long odds on Samsungs evidence remaining excluded on appeal, and if it is allowed on appeal, it is essentially an admission that Koh shouldn't have excluded... They weren't so late as to justify exclusion, there is plenty of precedent for evidence being introduced later than this and being allowed.

In any event, in a year or so, we can have a look back and have our answer, and you will be able to look back at your posting history and see that I was right.

There is nothing in that statement that implies prejudicing the jury, only an attorneys opinion of the quality and force of the evidence presented. In all truth, it was a stab at judge Koh. It looks like he wants to get her as riled up as possible. It would be a master strategy, as any emotional response she gives, will essentially hand the whole thing to an appeals court faster than you can say conflict-of-interest.

What's the conflict? I think you're confusing "bias" with "conflict".

Did you see what I did there? I never said there was any kind of conflict of interest, but somehow you came away with the impression that I did (which is why I included the original statement for reference). I made no false statements, nor did I Libel anyone, but to the general public it looks like I did in fact say that she was behaving unethically. That is exactly the same maneuver Quinn is using against Koh, and she is falling all over herself in rising to the bait. Quinn is damn good at what he does, an

Why would you use the term in that sort of rhetorical construct otherwise?

To leave you with exactly the impression you have without having actually said it. He could have said "faster than a bunny on meth" and you wouldn't likely think he was saying that the court was overrun with drug abusing rabbits.

Apple included the F700 in their own presentation and said it was another example of Samsung copying them. I believe this is called "opening the door" [uslegal.com], which means the F700 is now admissable even if it is raised after discovery.

That would never stick and would most likely backfire horribly for several reasons:

1 - I'm a nomad, so you'd have to track me down, and chances are you'd not find me where you think I am because I rent PO Boxes -- This would complicate your life attempting to find a plausible location for the murder.

2 - I make sure to find roommates to live with wherever I go for personal protection -- This means it would be extremely hard to find me in a situation in which I wouldn't have an alibi.

(i) who says it's false, other than you and Samsung? The fact that you need to assume a conclusion to support your argument implies that you've got a hole in it.

That's called "begging the question". The parent, however, isn't doing that at all.

See, he's not arguing that the allegation is false. (That's assumed as, he suggests, the falsity of Apple's claims about the F700 have already been established.) He's arguing that the evidence that establishes the falsity of Apple's claims should be admissible. A fun bit -- that the allegations are false is completely irrelevant to his argument. He included it, it seems, for some rhetorical punch -- likely because he's n

The exclusion of the evidence is justified, you are correct. However, that applies to both parties, equally. Once one party has presented the evidence and it has been allowed, both parties can use it. Samsung presented it, it was not allowed. Apple presented it, it was allowed. Samsung made reference to it after Apple presented it and it was allowed, and Samsung was told it was not allowed; it had already been allowed at this point, Koh is just on crack.

Actually, I think this has pointed out a flaw in the legal process. We're not talking about Joe's dog peeing on his neighbor's freshly painted picket fence causing $100 in damages. We're talking about a decision which will impact billions if not tens of billions of dollars in sales. The whole point of having a court system is to determine the truth. The whole point of having deadlines is to make sure that determination happens in timely manner

Moreso, I will admit that I spoke before fully researching this matter. The evidence certainly should have been allowed, as it was submitted, albeit late in the process, during the allotted discover timeframe. As for why it was submitted late, it was in response to Apple's own late submission.

The design of the F700 is precisely what Samsung is not being allowed to enter into evidence, slong with the facts regarding when that design was created. Meanwhile, Apple is being allowed to enter that very design into evidence *against* Samsing. What don't you understand about that? The moment Apple was allowed to use a photo of the design, Samsung should have been allowed to fill in the missing pieces.

Now, I've responded to about 3 or 4 comments, but this guy is all over the page. I'm sure you remember the couple of stories on "reputation management" and paid bulletin board responders that was on Slashdot a while back. He (and a couple others) are either jobless fanboys or part of Apple's farm team.

"rile up" the judge is NOT "the very definition of contempt of court." Some ways one might rile up the judge would be contempt but it is up to a good lawyer to push that as far as possible without being in contempt.

There is a doctrine called subornation of perjury. Lawyers cannot present a case they know to be false. Once they have indicated that F700 came after the iPad if that is false that's a perjury. They cannot make filings that the F700 came after, if thats false. There is no such thing as a one sided exclusion. There are a series of true statements about the F700 that can be entered into evidence or not entered. Apple has control there. Samsung having missed a deadline does not entitle Apple to enter false statements about the F700 into evidence.

And that is what Koh is permitting in Samsung's view.

(iPhone, btw, not iPad)
There's no intimation that any perjury is going on or false statements are being entered, so I don't know where you're getting that. The F700 came after Apple's original designs for the iPhone (it even post-dates their original patent applications that go back to 2006, I believe), so it's not false to say that it did.

What Samsung is trying to claim is that they independently designed the F700 without copying Apple's design... but they can't use their documentary evidence, because th

1) the jury has already been picked and instructed to not read any news reports on this material, so releasing it now can't affect the jury. If you can't rely on the jury to follow instructions, then the process is broken anyhow.

2) the material itself was already public before Samsung released it. they just pointed out which publicly-available material the judge wouldn't let in

3) the judge herself said that this trial should be as open as possible, hence the material being available to the public in the first place

4) the judge did not instruct that this material could not be released so it's not like the lawyers were disobeying orders

I think Apple actually surprised Samsung by referring to the F700 as a copy of the iPhone after discovery, and Samsung hadn't expected to have to draw from it. This entire bunfight has to do with Koh allowing Apple to keep their references to the F700 as a copy while not allowing Samsung to add their own evidence.

PJ addressed this in her post at Groklaw, but very basically information that is already in the public domain can not effect the court, as the jury has already been instructed to avoid news and any other external information source containing information about the trial. Samsung's press release didn't contain anything that wasn't already in the public domain.
From Groklaw:

Remember in the SCO v. Novell trial, SCO's hair was on fire because it worried that the jury would visit Groklaw if an exhibit included the url and made Novell remove it after the judge refused to ban the exhibit itself? And why did he refuse? Because he said he relied on the jury to follow his instructions, adding that if you can't trust them to do that much, we might as well just quit.

PJ addressed this in her post at Groklaw, but very basically information that is already in the public domain can not effect the court, as the jury has already been instructed to avoid news and any other external information source containing information about the trial. Samsung's press release didn't contain anything that wasn't already in the public domain.

Unfortunately, PJ and Groklaw stopped being an impartial source a while ago. Anyone who repeats the "rounded rectangle" nonsense cannot be considered impartial.

I don't know if Samsung is doing to push her buttons. As a judge, she has ruled on this particular subject numerous times and it has been appealed. Samsung's lawyers appear to be doing an end-around her orders. While technically she never ruled that Samsung couldn't release the information, they are getting close to breaking the spirit of her rulings. Most judges would not be happy.

I don't know if Samsung is doing to push her buttons. As a judge, she has ruled on this particular subject numerous times and it has been appealed. Samsung's lawyers appear to be doing an end-around her orders. While technically she never ruled that Samsung couldn't release the information, they are getting close to breaking the spirit of her rulings. Most judges would not be happy.

You've missed a few important details: She specifically ordered the court documents unsealed That means that by HER orders, the very documents Samsung released are PUBLIC. The spirit of her rulings is being upheld by Samsung, and their lead counsel. She is mad because in the court of public opinion she is going to be crucified (and rightly so) With all her mis-steps and outright blunders, many people will be questioning her fitness to serve. Her only way out now is recuse herself because of her bias and declare a mistrial (start over). God forbid one of these judges should admit their mistakes and pony up. They're human, they make mistakes, but as my father always told me, its not whether you make mistakes that demonstrates your greatness, its how you handle your mistakes. Stepping aside is the only way for her to save any face, and if there were any real justice, it would be the only way to save her job.

You have the point.. What matters is what happens IN COURT. right or wrong, the materials were rejected as evidence because they were not filed on time. Therefore, the materials aren't part of the jury's decision.

The issue is that the lawyers orginally didn't want to release these at all, then under seal... Judge got tired of the nonsense and called them on the deadline. To take that information to the media after you LOST your turn in court is the judge's problem.

Judge order all court documents unsealed. Judge gave order Docket 1256, the judge's order: "The whole trial is going to be open". So the media could have gone down to the court room and asked for a copy of the documents.Also Apple brought up the F700 first, which if you as you say are a lawyer allows defense to work through new evidence. Quinn isn't an idiot , he probably did it to push the judge to an emotional response and she fell for it.

No, I disagree. What the litigants go the court of public opinion (should) have nothing to do with what the jurors hears in the court room. Jurors are instructed to not seek outside information about cases, they are told not to discuss the case with anyone (not even among one another after the trial concluded and jury deliberation starts. The jurors are supposed to avoid anything outside to the courtroom which might sway their opinions of the case

But in the case in particular, Apple has been talking with the media about the case with zeal. Samsung from my view of the trial has been relatively quiet about it. Samsung has been taking a beating in the court of public opinion. So the lawyer hit back in a very precise and calculated statements to the press. As I said before, the jury won't be affected, because they are supposed to avoid it. If the courts can't trusts jurors, they might as well go home or sequester the jury.

What is the world coming to when I find myself cheering on a lawyer, one whose actions and defense of such is just so damn much fun to read. Its like, okay Judge, two can play at this game and your out matched.

As for Apple, why must a company with such great products because the new poster child for much of what is wrong with regards to Intellectual property. They seem hell bent to do what their competitors could not do, besmirch their name

...like Kahn Noonian Singh pushing down on the bizarrely non-intuitive user-interface to the genesis device, Jobs dying wish will ultimately fail. If only he had targeted his overcapitalization for good, like putting men on Mars, I might respect him. Instead he blew it all on childish ego.

Sitting on the board of Directors of another company while developing a competing project of your own

Apple was well aware that Google was developing a phone when Schmidt was on their board, and it was public knowledge he recused himself during many iPhone discussions. Apple could have ejected him at any time.

Apple is playing dirty in this fight, and Samsung is having problems as a result. What's absolutely clear is that the evidence Samsung has presented in public shows that Apple is basically lying about Samsung's products and development processes.

And last I looked, Samsung is the most popular manufacturer of Android phones, itself the most popular smartphone operating system. So there's a hell of a lot of people who disagree with your last sentence. The mystery is why a locked down pseudo-smartphone that doesn't even let you change the battery without special tools has a single buyer.

Judge Lucy Koh ordered all the legal documents be un-sealed, but then complains when Samsung sends the unsealed , public information to the press , of which the press requested. If Apple wins, Samsung will win on appeal because the judge is digging her own hole.

Docket 1256, the judge's order: "The whole trial is going to be open". Please read Mr. Quinns response. The excluded evidence that Samsung was trying to submit wasn't sealed. I know this is/. but did you even read the groklaw article? The judge made a fool of herself by getting emotional.

"Using Vodafone as its network provider, the phone was first introduced at the 3GSM World Congress that was held in February 2007. Sales to the European market started November 2007."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-F700 [wikipedia.org]

The iPhone was announced a month prior to the F700, it had a real smartphone OS, a full fledged browser and email client, no slide-out keyboard. So is Samsung saying that Apple used a time machine because the iPhone was in development long before 2006 and was in customers hands 4 months before the Samsung device.

are you suggesting the F700 wasnt in development before the iPhone was released? If you look at a SGS and the F700 they are almost identical. There is no wrong to be pursued here, it is clear that both the apple and the samsung designs have well established histories that dont involve copying from one another.

Regardless of which came first (personally, I think it was a case of parallel, concurrent development and that neither side copied the other for those two devices) I think Samsung is playing up the F700 a lot because they want to win in the court of public opinion, not because the F700 actually matters. This controversy is good for them, both in terms of PR and in terms of helping to establish cause for a mistrial, possibly.

All of this would be relevant if someone was trying to argue iPhone is a copy of F700 or vice versa.

But nobody says that. Well, besides Apple, who presented it as evidence Samsung copied their yet unpopular phone in measly one month (or four months, depending of if you take presentation dates or release dates). Them korean bastards!

Didn't you read that? F700 was presented by Apple on one of the slides, and Samsung tried to enter prototypes of 2006 to show that was not a copy of Apple's design.

Samsung presents F700 as supporting the idea that Samsung didn't have to copy Apple to come to this design.

Show F700 and Galaxy S to someone who doesn't know about iPhone (however unlikely that is to find such a person) and ask them if they are a part of same lineage or line breaks between them at some point for some reason.

I'm not sure what point it is that I'm missing or what you're trying to say.

If your point is that it's sleazy that Apple can introduce it as evidence and then use it against Samsung by claiming it's a copy, then yes, I agree with you. Wholeheartedly. The two phones share almost nothing in common, so allowing Apple to claim otherwise is unfair if Samsung is unable to respond with facts. But that wasn't the topic I was addressing.

The topic I was addressing was whether or not the F700 would be effective in pro

The point is that Samsung was developing the F700 before the iPhone was revealed, but were not allowed to mention that in court after Apple brought up the F700 as an example of copying.

If you're on trial for something and the judge tells the prosecution that they're not allowed to bring up your previous conviction, that all goes out the window if you mention it while on the stand, and they can then question you on it. This is supposed to be the same thing.

Not what Samsung is saying in the slightest (did you even read the second sentence of the summary, or did you just jump into the comments?). What Samsung is claiming is that they developed the F700 independently of Apple. Apple is claiming Samsung copied them (in fact, they specifically point to the F700 as an example). In other words, Samsung is the one who would have needed the time machine, to make an iPhone-like device before the iPhone was ever revealed and possibly before the iPhone design was even fi

..are you suggesting that the first iphone which featured just web pages as "programs" had a real smartphone os? not by any definition used by anyone in the business in 2007..

technically f700 due to having midp support wipes the floor with first gen iphone. it also had hsdpa during time when apple was trying to argue to people that edge-grps is just fine.

maybe you're also suggesting that they built f700 in a month and they used a time machine for filing their design patent for it in 2006? just face the music, the form factor was on it's way from numerous manufacturers(others than samsung and lg too) during that time, due to tech for making such phones coming to favorable price range: that's the real reason for iphone surfacing when it did, they were in a hurry to get it out during that favorable time. that's why the first generation was half assed in many, many ways.

Still, there was a windows of oportunity to Samsung to copy the iPhone design since they are suppliers of Apple. Still, the F700 could and should be fairly safe of any claims by Apple, but not the following models, there is a clear imitation of Samsung of Apple designs even from the packaging style and the design of the interface.

A judge can "suppress" evidence within the courtroom. That's fine, that's even necessary. If evidence was illegally obtained, say through an illegal search and seizure, of course a judge should prevent it from being used in court. I may think it was wrongly suppressed in this case, but it's the law.

But Samsung isn't trying to release this evidence in court. They're releasing it for public knowledge. They may be doing so in an attempt to overturn the inevitable ruling, but a judge cannot prevent a company from releasing its own property in a case like this (national defense, maybe, or if it was "stolen" information, but that's not this case).

So it's logical to conclude that Samsung believes:a) The judge is completely biased, possibly bought off, perhaps just a rabid Apple fangirlb) That they cannot win this case, and will need to appeal, therefore:c) Pissing off the judge cannot hurt them, as this judge would never rule for them anyways, andd) Anything they can do to improve their odds on appeal is worthwhile

So Samsung is playing the long game. They've given up on this battle, and are already preparing for the next one.

In fact, if they can show that this judge ruled more harshly in retaliation for doing something that is completely legal, they improve their odds of getting it overturned on appeal. So they should actually be trying to anger this judge (through entirely legal means, of course).

So Samsung is playing the long game. They've given up on this battle, and are already preparing for the next one.

In fact, if they can show that this judge ruled more harshly in retaliation for doing something that is completely legal, they improve their odds of getting it overturned on appeal. So they should actually be trying to anger this judge (through entirely legal means, of course).

They overlooked one thing, the IOC is going to get them thrown out for not "playing to the best of their ability" since they are not fighting in this case like it's life and death.

I think more people than Samsung believes this. And that Koh is probably on a power trip (like most judges) so that it makes her feel more powerful when she can bar the truth from being told over some technical matter of the law. Almost as bad as not allowing a smoking gun into a murder trial because of an illegal search and seizure... even if it proves guilt. Both circumstances suppress the truth. So why is one bad and not the other. No altruistic arguments now. We're strictly talking about suppressing tru

Almost as bad as not allowing a smoking gun into a murder trial because of an illegal search and seizure... even if it proves guilt. Both circumstances suppress the truth. So why is one bad and not the other.

Because a murder trial features the full might of the State aligned against one defendant. Because of this, the Constitution and the legal process give criminal defendants additional procedural rights to help to level the playing field. The State is far more powerful than the defendant, so the State

You suppress evidence gathered from illegal searches because it is a huge discouragement to performing illegal searches.

Let's say I'm a cop, and I suspect someone is responsible for the murder I'm investigating. I've got zero evidence besides a really good gut feeling. Can't get a warrant.

If I break in and search the place anyway, I could find the evidence I need (or even plant the evidence I want found, because I'm a loose-cannon cop not playing by the rules). But it's illegal, and the judge will throw it

In fact, if they can show that this judge ruled more harshly in retaliation for doing something that is completely legal, they improve their odds of getting it overturned on appeal. So they should actually be trying to anger this judge (through entirely legal means, of course).

Yes, that's why it's so interesting to see what the judge will do next.

First of all, you are confusing legal with court procedures. It's not illegal for a lawyer to show up in court wearing a bikini. I'm pretty sure all judges would issues orders of contempt if a lawyer did that.

Here's why the judge is mad. She's ruled on this subject repeatedly. Samsung missed their deadlines. While it might have helped them, that's too bad. Now it seems they are doing an end-around her orders.

As for not hurting them, I suppose that you've never gotten a judge angry at you. While they h

How are they doing an end-run around her orders? Has the jury seen any of this evidence? I doubt it, considering that they're supposed to be sequestered now. So the "end-run" theory fails.

Besides, all of the documents were already in the public. All Samsung did was say "here is what the judge is suppressing." Here's a NYT article which explicitly mentions the F700 evidence...and it's dated before the jury had even been chosen!

I believe it was a response to Apple submitting evidence equally late in the discovery process claiming that the Samsung F700 was a copy of the iPhone. Basically, the judge allowed Apple to ambush Samsung late in the discovery process with transparently bogus claims that they'd copied the iPhone when that was impossible barring time travel, despite the fact that Apple had to have known about the F700 for long enough to submit that evidence earlier, and then blocked Samsung from responding to the ambush on t

how do you ambush someone with publicly available vids and filed design patents?

moreover.. what the fuck does have to do with samsung re-releasing that information to press since it's their own company history shouldn't they be able to release and broadcast it as widely as they want?

And what did the judge so when Apple showed non-admissible evidence right there inside the court room? Not a damn thing. Just kidding, actually she did do something. She told Samsung to stop complaining about it.

As far as phones and tablets go the technology changed. Apple just wasn't going to do anything until It could make it the way it wanted to. Samsung was already making phones and tablets with the technology that was available at the time. It didn't allow for the designs that apple wanted hence they waited. Samsung did not copy they were infact just changing their designs to utilize the best materials and desgn that new research, parts etc, made possible. As they are showing they were already headed that way

In fact, Samsung developed many of the processes and parts that made Apple's iPhone design possible. They, in large part, made the iPhone's design possible. It wasn't until they developed the technologies to make such designs possible that they were, themselves, able to make products modeled after such designs. How do people not get that?

What, exactly, is ridiculous? I see nothing ridiculous about SAMSUNG'S behavior in this case, only Apple's. And the judge. The only 'ridiculous' thing Samsung is doing is having the balls to defend itself against a judge that is very clearly in the wrong, and a patent troll (Apple in this case). I'm DEFINITELY buying a Samsung as my next phone after this...

And well FOSS is all copies of commercial applications, so they're out too.

I wonder what commercial application was the original for NCSA httpd (whose latest reincarnation is Apache, which started out as a series of patches to NCSA httpd). Or the original for sendmail. Or for BIND. Or for the BSD filesystem. I wonder why commercial UNICes included the BSD toolchain anyway, if there were commercial applications BSD copied from.

Yes, pretty sure stripping off that slide-out keyboard to come to the disputed design was beyond possibility. Samsung had to throw away all their earlier design (did you read actual design patent claims that are at the core of the suit? "black, rectangular, rounded corners, bezel, flat surface level with edges", the whole thing? Those are present in F700) to copy Apple's patented design.